On 27 Sep, 23:53, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:12, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 9:49 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 8:51 p.m., harry wrote:
On 27 Sep, 02:20, wrote:
On 26 Sep, 19:51, wrote:
ie Complete
********.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related
Gravity powered aircraft? As useful as a lead Zeppelin.
Never a mention of friction.
That's just the start of the reasons for infeasibility.
Actually its ultimately not infeasible, just impractical and inefficient.
*From a cursory glance (it deserves no more) all it is conceptually,
is a glider
and a balloon. Balloon lifts glider, glider glides to where it has to go.
The energy to turn a lighter than air volume of gas into a smaller
compressed
volume that then acquires sufficient weight to act as a glider, is not
mentioned.
The whole system is claimed to be self-sufficient. *As I recall the
compression is powered by the propellers acting as turbines as the plane
glides down. *It's perpetual motion.
Oh? I couldn't be arsed to listen that far.

There was one interesting idea that was mooted, that on analysis I
couldn't find a flaw with: A wind powered boat or vehicle that could
sail or drive directly into the wind using a turbine facing the wind to
drive a water prop or wheels..also said to be capable of going faster
than the wind..directly downwind..less sure about that, though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An ordinary sail boat can sail faster than the wind without the
benifit of strange turbines.

Not directly downwind it cant harry dearest

Go back to your rattle now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Making qualifications now are we?.